Articles 494 and 495 of the law defined an incitement as all means of criticism, through words, in writing, in the form of arts and any media in public. Each act, whenever it is accused as the way of incitement, will be charged and sent to prison to six months to two years as well as the fine from one to four million Riels.
The worries pointed out that there is still vague definition of incitement. It is not clear what kinds of acts to be considered as incitement. This may be seen as a legal tool for the court to allegedly accuse any victim(s), as it has happened so far; especially in connection with land disputes, of the matter.
In addition, the articles also reveal the intention to restrict on freedom of expression through court system, which seen as the obstacle of the progressiveness of democracy in Cambodia.
Mrs. Ke Sovannaroth, Secretary General and Lawmaker from Sam Raisy Party, criticized the articles about “incitement” are not clear. What can be defined as “incitement”, she mentioned.
The definition defined through words, writing and pictures in the public as incitement reveals the will of seriously violating freedom of speech and expression. She wanted the government to unmistakably identify the meaning of “incitement”. She also gave an example in relation to the case of land dispute in Chikreng district, of which she was accused involved with inciting villagers to commit violence against local authorities. She reviewed that on March 22, 2009 joint armed-force, police, military police and local authority opened fire at some 42 family members, accused them of robbing other villagers’ rive. On behalf of the member of parliament in Siem Reap, she only acted on her own behalf to help those villagers; by contrast she was accused of incitement.
Another Sam Rainsy Party lawmaker, Mrs. Mu Sochua also criticized the articles. At the same time, she often requested the National Assembly to put away with the articles; and recommended that the government should provide better education to its people, rather than put charges against them.
On October 7, 2009 twenty-one civil society organizations issued their concerns through the 12-page report about the new criminal law; especially on the same “incitement”.
Mr. Sok Sam Oeun, Exectutive Director of Cambodian Defenders Project (CDP) said that what he was worried about was freedom of expression. This would come as two serious problems. The court may interpret differently. There was no clearly definition of what could be thought as incitement and what could not. However, the Cambodian Constitutional Law writes that there is no charge of giving opinion.
Whereas, Mrs. Kek Galabru, the president of Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (Licadho) said laws are passed for all people- from junior to senior level to respect. On behalf of a democratic country, the leaders shall adopts any law in accordance with the (international) standard.
Mr. Ou Virak, president of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights, stated that although defamation and disinformation – criminal charges under the new law – did not carry jail terms, a new article criminalizing the defamation of government institutions could potentially curtail the work of civil society. He also recommended that experts, scholars or other stakeholders should have been allowed to participate in the debate.
Once again on October 16, 2009 the Cambodian Center for Human Rights issued a release, titled “Penal Code – Freedom of Expression in Jeopardy,” to show its concerns that the new law does not abide by the international standard and the Cambodian constitutional law; especially the charge against defamation and some vague terminology. What has been the most concern is the restriction on freedom of expression, which entirely contradicts to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The definition of Freedom of Expression as per Article 19 (2) of the ICCPR includes the freedoms to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
Article 19 (3) of the ICCPR provides for a proportionality test to ensure an appropriate balance between the right to free expression on matters of public interest, and the protection of individual reputation that necessitate restrictions to freedom of expression. This balance has not been met in the Penal Code, which is titled in favor of immunity from scrutiny on the part of politicians. This imbalance can only restrict democratic debate to the detriment of Cambodian citizens and the development of a pluralist society founded upon openness to scrutiny, discussion and debate.
However, through the new law, we do not know for sure how many people; especially local representatives, journalists, right activists and politicians will be the targets of defamation, disinformation and incitement lawsuit.
No comments:
Post a Comment